Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Imperial Research Station (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=54)
-   -   Exotic Matter Drives (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=41906)

Werner March 23rd, 2021 09:11 AM

Exotic Matter Drives
 
This is the stuff that keeps wormholes open and makes warp drives possible, it is matter with negative mass-energy, when in large concentrations it produces antigravity fields and it has negative inertia. For game purposes exotic matter is found in nuggets at negative densities similar to the positive densities of neutron stars, and the usually are positively charged or negatively charged but never neutral as like charges attract and opposite charges repel due to negative inertia.

How would this affect the Traveller Universe if it was widely avaliable?

whulorigan March 23rd, 2021 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623579)
This is the stuff that keeps wormholes open and makes warp drives possible, it is matter with negative mass-energy, when in large concentrations it produces antigravity fields and it has negative inertia. For game purposes exotic matter is found in nuggets at negative densities similar to the positive densities of neutron stars, and the usually are positively charged or negatively charged but never neutral as like charges attract and opposite charges repel due to negative inertia.

My understanding according to theoretical-based conjecture is that positive mass would always be attractive (toward either positive or negative mass) and negative mass would always be repulsive (toward either positive or negative mass): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...Runaway_motion

On the Talking M-Drive Acceleration thread, ATPollard and I were discussing some topics tangentially related to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 558707)
Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 558706)
Perhaps the MD just reduces mass relative to the universe slowly so I accelerate until I am massless and travel at the speed of light. Then what happens if it continues to reduce mass and I start to have negative mass (which is the equivalent of negative energy). Will I accelerate past the speed of light?

I have always thought that would be an interesting basis for an ultra-tech Inertialess Drive - one in which the rest-mass of the ship can be "tunably" decoupled from the Higgs Field (which gives fundamental particles their intrinsic rest-masses), allowing the ship to produce a pseudo-acceleration as the inertial-mass gets "tuned down" toward zero.

An interesting consequence of negative mass would be that it experiences a repulsive force from either a positive or negative mass, while at the same time a positive mass would attract either a positive or negative mass. The result is that a negative mass and a positive mass coupled together would accelerate as a unit toward lightpseed in order to preserve conservation of momentum and energy (remember, the masses as well as the velocities will have signs in the conservation equation), which is completely counter-intuitive. :)

There are actually scientific papers written on this conjectural topic. See: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514...urnalCode=jpp&


=================================

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623579)
How would this affect the Traveller Universe if it was widely avaliable?

  1. It would revolutionize STL travel for one thing. Maneuver Drives with no reaction mass or power requirements for drive operation. (Perhaps there would be other energy costs or complications associated with producing/maintaining the negative-mass in a useful configuration, however).
  2. You would potentially have a true perpetual motion machine that does NOT violate the laws of physics, especially if you can convert the system to circular motion in some fashion.
  3. Depending on the speed a particular FTL negative mass-drive (Alcubierre Warp-Drive) could achieve at a given TL, there could be potential interstellar travel in less than 1 week.
  4. There could be potential FTL-communication systems

Werner March 23rd, 2021 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 623581)
My understanding according to theoretical-based conjecture is that positive mass would always be attractive (toward either positive or negative mass) and negative mass would always be repulsive (toward either positive or negative mass): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negati...Runaway_motion

On the Talking M-Drive Acceleration thread, ATPollard and I were discussing some topics tangentially related to this:

The greater mass magnitude wins out. You could have a negmatter planet orbiting a positive mass star, it will orbit a little slower at the same radius as a positive mass planet. At the densities I'm talking about, this negmatter planet would have a diameter measured in centimeters and it would be held together by something other than gravity. Maybe electric charge a negmatter planet would have a positive charge and be surrounded by a cloud of electrons.

Werner March 23rd, 2021 12:13 PM

I got to think carefully. The gravitational formula has two masses and if the sum of the two masses is positive then the gravitational force between them will be attractive, if the sum is negative thenforce will be repulsive.

whulorigan March 23rd, 2021 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623584)
I got to think carefully. The gravitational formula has two masses and if the sum of the two masses is positive then the gravitational force between them will be attractive, if the sum is negative then force will be repulsive.

Sum? Newtonian Gravitational Force is proportional to the Product of two masses. Or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at?

But the relationship for positive and negative masses is based on the articles I referenced above. You cannot simply assume the Newtonian formula works algebraically for negative mass in the same way as positive mass, as Newton did no experiments with, nor took into account negative masses in his formulation. We also have a much more sophisticated understanding of Gravity than Newton did as well.

Werner March 23rd, 2021 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 623585)
Sum? Newtonian Gravitational Force is calculated based on the Product of two masses. Or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at?

But the relationship for positive and negative masses is based on the articles I referenced above. You cannot simply assume the Newtonian formula works algebraically for negative mass in the same way as positive mass, as Newton did no experiments with, nor took into account negative masses in his formulation. We also have a much more sophisticated understanding of Gravity than Newton did as well.

I was going from memory, didn't have the equation right in front of me. We have no experience with negative mass at all, there are a few guesses. Antigravity would have tidal force, it would have a pan caking effect rather than a stretching on. The part of you that was closest to the antigravity source would be pushed away the hardest. Antigravity would obey the inverse square law just as gravity does. And while gravity bends space creating a gravity well, antigravity would create a gravity hill, light would bend away from the source of antigravity. Stable orbits are impossible to achieve as centrifugal force and antigravity both work in the same direction unlike with gravity where they cancel each other out to achieve orbit.

Time would move faster the higher up the antigravity well you would climb. Light traveling outward would be blue shifted. You can't make a black hole with negative mass, the event horizon would be turned inside-out and be something you cannot enter rather than escape from. Time would also be infinitely accelerated at that inside-out event horizon and a white hole would only last for an instant, there would be and explosion and it would be gone, while black holes last nearly forever!

Also when negative mass comes in contact with positive mass, you have nullification rather than annihilation, whereas matter and antimatter produce energy, matter and negative matter just produce nothing. If you drop negative matter into a black hole, it shrinks, that is what Hawking radiation is, negative matter falling into a black hole leaving its positive matter twin particles to come out as radiation.

whulorigan March 23rd, 2021 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623587)
... Antigravity would have tidal force, it would have a pan caking effect rather than a stretching one. The part of you that was closest to the antigravity source would be pushed away the hardest. Antigravity would obey the inverse square law just as gravity does. And while gravity bends space creating a gravity well, antigravity would create a gravity hill, light would bend away from the source of antigravity ... .

Time would move faster the higher up the antigravity well you would climb. Light traveling outward would be blue shifted. You can't make a black hole with negative mass, the event horizon would be turned inside-out and be something you cannot enter rather than escape from. Time would also be infinitely accelerated at that inside-out event horizon and a white hole would only last for an instant, there would be and explosion and it would be gone, while black holes last nearly forever!

Also when negative mass comes in contact with positive mass, you have nullification rather than annihilation, whereas matter and antimatter produce energy, matter and negative matter just produce nothing. If you drop negative matter into a black hole, it shrinks, that is what Hawking radiation is, negative matter falling into a black hole leaving its positive matter twin particles to come out as radiation.

All true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623587)
Stable orbits are impossible to achieve as centrifugal force and antigravity both work in the same direction unlike with gravity where they cancel each other out to achieve orbit.

But remember that much of the discussion depends on the equivalency principle. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical by all measurements to date (and General Relativity as formulated and observed to date requires their magnitudes to be identical). Now, all measurements to date have been measurements of positive inertial masses and positive gravitational masses, and it is clear that they are identical as regards their magnitude. But as to whether an object can have a positive value for one and a negative value for the other, that is a matter of conjecture. There is no reason to assume that they should not be identical in terms of sign for a given particle of mass, but neither is there a way to prove it to date. And there is no fundamental requirement from General Relativity that inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same sign. But conceptually there is no reason to think that they shouldn't.

For negative-mas/negative-mass interactions, "orbital" trajectories would be hyperbolic, a negative-mass being forced away from the anti-gravitating negative-mass center (which would be located at the opposite focus external to the hyperbola interior) as compared to a gravitational hyperbolic trajectory for a positive-mass object interacting with a positive-mass center, whose focus would be the center of gravitation located at the "interior" focus (but could also be a parabola, ellipse or circle, whose foci are also all located interior to the trajectory-path). A negative-mass and a positive-mass would accelerate as a unit along a vector in the direction of the positive mass, if full inertial/gravitational mass equivalency holds.

Also, a force applied to a negative mass would result in an acceleration in a direction opposite to the force applied. Like electric charges on negative mass particles would attract, and opposite ones would repel. The same would be the case for the Strong Nuclear Force: like color-charges would attract, and opposites would repel.

Werner March 23rd, 2021 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 623588)
All true.



But remember that much of the discussion depends on the equivalency principle. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical by all measurements to date (and General Relativity as formulated and observed to date requires their magnitudes to be identical). Now, all measurements to date have been measurements of positive inertial masses and positive gravitational masses, and it is clear that they are identical as regards their magnitude. But as to whether an object can have a positive value for one and a negative value for the other, that is a matter of conjecture. There is no reason to assume that they should not be identical in terms of sign for a given particle of mass, but neither is there a way to prove it to date. And there is no fundamental requirement from General Relativity that inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same sign. But conceptually there is no reason to think that they shouldn't.

For negative-mas/negative-mass interactions, "orbital" trajectories would be hyperbolic, a negative-mass being forced away from the anti-gravitating negative-mass center (which would be located at the opposite focus external to the hyperbola interior) as compared to a gravitational hyperbolic trajectory for a positive-mass object interacting with a positive-mass center, whose focus would be the center of gravitation located at the "interior" focus (but could also be a parabola, ellipse or circle, whose foci are also all located interior to the trajectory-path). A negative-mass and a positive-mass would accelerate as a unit along a vector in the direction of the positive mass, if full inertial/gravitational mass equivalency holds.

Also, a force applied to a negative mass would result in an acceleration in a direction opposite to the force applied. Like electric charges on negative mass particles would attract, and opposite ones would repel. The same would be the case for the Strong Nuclear Force: like color-charges would attract, and opposites would repel.

Also negative mass objects would tend not to form, if they occured in nature. In order to make an object, you need to overcome their gravitational repulsion so that shorter range forces such as electric charge can hold them together. Now if you do this, that is clearly a sign of intelligence at work. If there was a clump of negative matter orbiting a star, someone made it and put it's there, as negative particles that formed naturally would stay apart and not form objects, they might be the reason the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. The Universe might have zero net mass, with each positive mass particle negated by a negative mass particle with equal magnitude but opposite sign mass. As the Universe expanded and cooled the positive mass would clump together and form stars, planets and galaxies, the negative mass particles would not, they would however exert an anti gravitational field over the entire universe, maybe causing such expansion to accelerate, just speculation on my part.

aramis March 23rd, 2021 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werner (Post 623592)
Also negative mass objects would tend not to form, if they occured in nature.

That does not follow.

Positive Mass creates a deformation of spacetime which attracts positive mass.

Negative mass, mathematically should generate an opposite deformation of spacetime which would repel positive mass; it should them also draw other negative mass.

Werner March 23rd, 2021 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 623593)
That does not follow.

Positive Mass creates a deformation of spacetime which attracts positive mass.

Negative mass, mathematically should generate an opposite deformation of spacetime which would repel positive mass; it should them also draw other negative mass.

Gravity exerts a force on all objects in proportion to their mass. If for example you let go of a 1 kg object, Earth's gravity will pull it downwards exerting 9.8 newton's of force accelerating it downwards at 9.8 meters per second. Now if you dropped an object with a mass of -1 kg, the Earth's gravity will push it away with -9.8 newton's of force, and since it has negative inertia a push is a pull and it still falls toward Earth. But if we had a negative Earth worth of mass under it ,this negative Earth would pull the negative 1kg toward itself but since it has negative inertial a pull is a push and it falls upward, where it would push away a positive 1 kg and that would fall upwards as well, it all depends on which is the larger mass.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.